In your second reason you state "rights were hereditary." That was only true when they were enforced as such. But in either case, your suggestion to contrast those rights with "our nominally inalienable rights subject to court interpretation and legislation," is a good question. I've done so, as did many others a little more than two hundred years ago. Though not perfect, and in need of many improvements, it is these later rights that afford the greatest quality of life to all (except of course to those who view the only worthy quality of life exists in some long lost desire to kill others in pursuit of some valoric tradition or honor).
The third reason you gave proposes some kind of unexplained virtue in having morality and law inseparable, and coming from some "universal teaching of the church." Of course what "the church" is, was not explained. Again, you ask: "Contrast that with the state as source of all law that we have." Again, recognizing a need for continued improvements, as well as exceptions, the latter has given us much better and stabler law, than the former ever did.
You then went on to say that the principles you cited "are common to all feudal societies and are superior to ours." I can't imagine what was superior about it to ours. Your claim that it was a "political system that survived for over 1000 years across many lands," also is not true. It actually was a grouping of many systems, with the various forms quite often being more different from each other, than many of them are different from the North Korean feudal system.
I agree that the corporate anarcho-capitalist model "very closely approximates feudalism," especially if carried to full term. That to me is the number one draw back or fault with anarcho-capitalistism. Furthermore, much of libertarianism, including many of the more popular minarchist models lead directly to feudal monarchist systems as well. But those are not the only libertarian minarchist models.
At any rate, hiding these calculations of the effect of libertarian policy is wrong, and actually hurts the LP over the long run. Thus I welcome the shining of light on these bugs and will continue to do so myself until they have all been completely exposed and worked out.
And I am a Libertarian.
Territorial loyalty is a must in the modernt nation-state, and comes on top of individual loyalties we might have. Indeed it is apples and oranges, and I like oranges. I understand that the feudal society had severe limitations and so territory mattered in the practical sense a lot. But the principles of society were that land is something to be owned, and security arrangements is something pursued between individuals. It is the same merit many anarchists see in the capitalist model of corporate loyalty. If the state went away, we would be freer, and we would exchange labor and goods for security that corporate entities (like Securitas in your mall or your employer) provide professionally on the free market. That system would follow the feudal model in the modern world.
these [political] rights that afford the greatest quality of life to all
Our quality of life is afforded by the technological advances, not by the political system. Besides my thesis is not that feudalism had quality of life but that feudals were freer than citizens.
what "the church" is, was not explained
I am talking exclusively about Medieval Europe, so the church would be Catholic. The system of law in the Middle Ages was very complex and included fundamental divine law promulgated by the church and overlapping jurisdictions of the manor law and the king's court. It was a well balanced system. I don't think abuses like the juducial diktat of the Supreme Court in the abortion legislation, or like the Schiavo case when sloppy discovery of fact by an incompetent judge of lower jurisdiction would be impossible to overturn no matter how gross the injustice, -- would have been possible if moral considerations were built into the system as they were in the Middle Ages.
It becomes clear from the rest of your post that you are a minarchist libertarian and have the same problem with anarcho-capitalism as you would with feudalism. Perhaps we should simply be discussing the scepticism toward democratic state as expressed by H.H. Hoppe rather than attempting the greater challenge of discussing feudalism.